RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption

["David Allan" <dallan@nortel.com>]

Hi Nitin:

You wrote:

> LSP-ping was designed as an OAM mechansim for MPLS LSPs. Why do we
need another mechanism? What are the limitations of 
> lsp-ping that warrant this new mechanism? <snipped> We should go along
the same path for Ethernet OAM.

It is not applicable to either a PBB-TE switched path or, if you are of
that persuasion, an MPLS-TP switched path...as it stands today. And it
only goes downhill from there....

I would think the inappropriateness of applying LSP-PING to Ethernet OAM
would be self evident...Ethernet OAM already has it's own LB/LT
functionality so mandating another loopback exclusively for OAM
configuration is gratuitously complex.

As for MPLS-TP, LSP-PING would need recasting as a "non-IP" protocol to
fit the mandated profile from the joint design team and likely would
benefit from a trip to the fat farm to shed the other features it did
not need within said profile...

Dave